Chicago Chesed Fund

Monday, May 18, 2020

This is an important and enjoyable explanation of the fundamental difference between Mitzvos Assei and Mitzvos Lo Saaseh.

The speaker was pressed for time, so he doesn't answer a question about bechor that he poses at 27:30, but give it some thought and you'll have what to say.

I hope he'll forgive me, (actually, I hope he doesn't read this,) but here's some advice on how to watch the video. R D Stone is very thoughtful and deliberate in his presentation, and the subject matter certainly deserves just that. Youtube offers playback speed options. You might want to put it on 1.75x, and go back and replay it when you lose track.

Sunday, May 17, 2020

Many have reacted negatively to the invective directed against the people who participated in a private minyan against the rabbi's express directive. I am not interested in offering my opinion about kvod mara d'asra and the obligation to defer to a rov's strict instruction, especially in a community where there is only one shul and one rov. This was not bechadrei chadarim: This derogation of local religious leadership was, pshuto kemashma'o and in the most essential definition, befarhesya. Nor should readers care what I think about this. It seems to me that the correct reaction is so obvious that anyone that differs is not amenable to rational discourse.

What I am interested in is offering a lomdus.

A minyan is not merely a quantitative matter, that when you have ten people you have השראת השכינה and a hetter to say דברים שבקדושה. What you do have is a qualitative change, that now you have a צירוף that brings about a chalos din of "tzibbur." (An example of the change is that although you can not be motzi קריאת שמע with שומע כעונה, but if you are in a minyan you can. This is because the tziruf makes it that it is not "I am being yotzei with his dibbur." It is "His dibbur is like my dibbur." This is an elementary truth. But if you need to see it in print, please see רשימות שיעורים מסכת סוכה דף לח, א; עמ' קפז מהגרי"ד )

It seems to me that when the chalos tzibbur results in communal pirud, it's not shayach that it should have a din of tziruf to make a tzibbur. If the minyan gufa creates פירוד, it can not create a chalos of צירוף that would create a din of מנין.

But someone might argue, and point out that Reb Moshe in three places states that although for Tefilla betzibbur you need ten shomrei mitzvos, for saying devarim shebikdusha you count mumrim and mechallelei Shabbos. His raya is that we learn out the definition of eidah (for אלוקים נמצא בעדת אל) from the meraglim, who were called an eida (עד מתי לעדה הרעה). You see that even though the meraglim were kofer b'ikker, they had a din eida. After all, he says, nobody would argue and say that there is no din of kiddush or chillul hashem b'rabbim if the rabbim consists of kofrim.

Lechoirah you see that even the meraglim comprised a minyan, despite their terrible intentions and the fact that they had a din of מומרים.

I say that this is not a kashe.

First, they did not want to shaf a pirud, they were not separating themselves from the ציבור. On the contrary! They were hoping to convince all of Klal Yisrael to join them. It was a public statement that was intended to win over all the people. Here, on the other hand, they were fully aware that their minyan would create pirud; they wanted to make their own minyan knowing that they were and would remain alone in their action. This was not an attempt to convince and change. It was אני ואפסי עוד.

Second, this case is more than "people who are causing pirud." It is the chalos sheim minyan that is causing the pirud. Even if reshoim and mumrim are mitztareif to make a minyan, a tziruf that is inherently divisive is not a tziruf.

To make it clear which teshuva of Reb Moshe I referred to, here are the two clearest of his teshuvos on the matter. You will see that his analysis in determining the validity of the minyan is focused on the limud in Shas Bavli, as is that of all our rishonim.

I am not applying the rule of מצוה הבאה בעבירה per se. I am saying that that lomdus of מצוה הבאה בעבירה teaches that where the commission of the aveira directly EMPOWERS the mitzva, it becomes part of the CHARACTER and the CONSTITUTION of the mitzva, and renders the mitzva self contradictory, and tainted, and meaningless. The fact that Korach gathered his people, the fact that the Meraglim gathered people, that is like using a lulav shel asheirah. It's not particularly nice, but it doesn't passel the mitzva, because it is not part of the fabric of the mitzva. In this case, the effectuation of the halachic status of "minyan" itself causes division; that means that part of the fabric of the tziruf of the tzibur is the metziyus of pirud. Pirud can not be tziruf. There is no minyan. Their chazaras hashatz is a bracha levatala and their kaddish and kedusha is, at best, a sippur devarim b'alma.

Rav Pam would often describe his mother, someone who never spoke Lashon Hara, but not because she learned Hilchos Lashon Hara, not because she learned the Sefer Chofetz Chaim. It was because she looked at people with a good eye, she always looked to see a person in a positive way.

The trick to avoiding Lashon Hara is not to fight it every single time, but to battle the root cause of Lashon Hara.

The root cause of Lashon Hara is the bad eye with which a person looks at others. When a person has complaints about others. That’s the problem, the problem is we don’t look at people with a happy enough eye, with a happy enough face. We don’t Fargin other people.

*

Combining the two parts, one can discern that the living death of Tzaraas and the guarantee of life of Shemiras HaLashon are opposite ends of one spectrum.Shemiras HaLashon per se, i.e., refraining from Lashon Hara, is not the opposite of Tzaraas. The Shemiras Halashon of Rav Pam's mother, the Ayin Tov that allows you to see the good in other people, to be happy at their success and to mourn their failings, that Ayin Tov that is the real essence of not saying Lashon Hara, because you respect the other person and wish him well. That is the opposite of the spiritual corruption of Tzaraas.The contrast is between the teva of jealousy and not fargining, on the one hand, and true joy at another's happiness on the other. That v'ahavta is the reason for the bracha of oheiv yomim and lir'os tov, or arichus yomim and a pleasant life, precisely the opposite of the spiritual corruption of the metzora that brings removal from society and death of the body piece by piece. It brings me'urav im habriyos/daas habriyos nocheh and chiyus to the entire body.We often see righteous fulminations against extravagant weddings and vacations and homes, all expressed as distaste with such crass exhibitionism, such boorish vulgarity, such heartless selfishness. The vast majority of such diatribes are based not in mussar or even in "good taste," but just green eyed jealousy or a sense of inferiority. Oh, that's disgusting, look at his private jet, oh, look at the Olympic pool in his basement, of, look at his Saville Row suits and million dollar jewelry.... why doesn't he give his money to the poor, or pay the rabbeim, or......If, lu yetzuyor, a Rothschild would say that he is opposed to such extravagance and will henceforth not wear million dollar jewelry or buy a hotel in the Alps for a pied a terre for the occasional yomtov or fly in the Philharmonic for a Bar Mitzvah, it might mean something. If it's just you or me burchering, it's most probably just jealousy. If the interest on the cash in your CD were ten million dollars a year, and if you were giving the right amount of tzedaka of your money and your time, if when you made that wedding you paid for the weddings of three poor yesomim, you would be entirely right in making a fantastic extravaganza for your simchos. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with it. That's how you celebrate. You're happy! You want to go overboard! You want to express your excitement and joy! If you, the complainer, want to be rich, and you are not, that's not the fault of the rich. It is because you are not smart enough, or not disciplined enough, or not driven enough, or too timid to commit, or, of course, you don't have the siyata dishmaya. Or, as Reb Moshe once said to someone, maybe you had a tzadik ancestor that prayed that you should not have the nisyonos of wealth.Instead of working on other people's middos, work on your own. If you see someone doing an aveira, then give him mussar. If you see someone and it looks like they're having too good a time, they're being so self indulgent - just try to not be a metzora. Be a Tov Ayin hu yevorach and be happy for him.

Coincidentally, this point was limned by Rabbi Dr. Nachum Stone of Maalei Adumim in his shul bulletin, which I reproduce in entirety.

When a passuk is written with an
abstract clause, it can't be interpreted literally. One cannot “walk” in a set
of laws or behaviors. This invites a wide range of interpretations. Some interpret,
not to follow the laws of the gentiles. Some interpretations are hairstyle, behavior,
architecture, dress, fashion. Rambam following a number of Talmudic citations rules
“all the above”.

“their theaters and circuses” in other words,
their leisure activities. Rambam did not bring this at all in his longer list
of forbidden activities.

As we (hopefully) enter the last
stages of our CoronaVirus isolation, I think that we can better appreciate
Rashi’s interpretation, which seems to be more metaphoric or abstract than Rambam.

To a large degree, many of us
have been forced into almost full-time leisure mode. What did we do with our
time? A lot of everything, of course. The mix of activities are on a continuum
of spiritual, intellectual, mundane, mindless and perhaps even embarrassing.
The choices we made to a large degree indicate our values.

Rashi is instructing us to avoid the
entertainments that do not promote or perhaps are even in conflict with our
ideals and mores. As we emerge from our isolation, we can use the opportunity
to evaluate how we used our time.

*******

In today's (Wednesday) Daf, Shabbat
54b, the discussion surrounds a certain cow who walked about on Shabbat
improperly adorned with a decorative ribbon. (It is forbidden to have one’s
animal carry an unnecessary burden in the public domain on Shabbat.) The cow is
identified as belonging to Ribi Elazar ben Azariya, even though it was not his.
The gemara explains that Ribi Elazar ben Azariya is assigned responsibility for
the cow, which belonged to a neighbor, because he didn't protest the
inappropriate decoration. The leaders of a community are responsible for
the behavior of the collective.

Each of us has a leadership role to
play within our families, communities, employment. And that is leading
by example. Certainly, no one should stick their noses into anyone
else's affairs. We must all get our own priorities in order. Have we
taken steps to welcome God into our lives? Does our behavior properly express
the purpose of our being?

As we strive to make our day-to-day
lives reflect the ideals of Judaism, we help each other and all of Am Yisrael. When
we accept Rashi’s advice to limit our adoption of entertainments of the
gentiles, we can start walking in the Godly path.

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Does it matter if it is for one's own protection, or for the protection of others, or simply a government edict for a policy reason unrelated to health (such as to remind people to not touch their faces, or to maintain social distancing.)Here are two teshuvos on this question. The first is from Harav Moshe Kaufman, a Dayan and poseik of the Midwest Beis Hora'ah and author of numerous sefarim. The second is from Harav Reuven Klein, another young gadol. Rabbi Klein's teshuva takes a very different approach, and incorporates his discussions with Rav Usher Weiss.Rabbi KaufmanMasks on Shabbos.docx

THIS IS COPIED FROM A DIFFERENT WEBSITE. IT IS NOT CONSONANT WITH OTHER POSTS ON THIS BLOG, BUT I AM POSTING IT AS A PUBLIC SERVICE.Maybe I've been quarantined too long.In perhaps the greatest cosmic absurdity, it appears that tobacco use protects against infection by the Covid 19 virus.

found that although ACE2 expression was not significantly different between Asian and white people, men and women, or subgroups aged older and younger than 60 years, it was significantly higher in current smokers of Asian ethnicity than Asian non-smokers; although no difference was found between smokers and non-smokers who were white. Nonetheless, the current literature does not support smoking as a predisposing factor in men or any subgroup for infection with SARS-CoV-2. In the study by Zhang and colleagues,

The relatively small proportion of current smokers in each of these two studies compared with the proportion of male smokers in China (50·5%) are unlikely to be associated with incidence or severity of COVID-19. A trend towards an association was seen between smoking and severity of COVID-19 in the study by Zhang and colleagues

(11·8% of smokers had non-severe disease vs 16·9% of smokers with severe disease), but it was not significant. Without strong evidence of an association between smoking and prevalence or severity of COVID-19 in Asian men compared with other subgroups, no firm conclusions can be drawn. With more cases being examined from different ethnic and genetic backgrounds worldwide, ACE2 expression variation can be better analysed and compared to establish whether it contributes to susceptibility to COVID-19 across the different subgroups.

I am not a doctor. I don't know if the consequence of widespread smoking would be positive because of the protection from Coronavirus, or negative, because of increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and emphysema.

But it's remarkable that with all the silly nostrums out there, nobody wants to talk about this one, which has such a strong scientific basis that it breaches the "it can't possibly be true" research barrier.I personally don't want to take up smoking again, because I remember how much it impaired my daily functionality and how hard it was for me to quit. I'm sure that if I started again, I would rather risk some horrible disease than quit again. Even for the rest of you, only a fool would pick up on this and begin smoking. But vaping might be something to consider. Now we need a vape we can use on yomtov..... A Shabbos Vape. Come on, Tzomet!

Sunday, April 12, 2020

TL:DR - In Tehillim Mizmor 4 are two messages that are worth remembering in our current circumstances.1. You daven where the Ribono shel Olam tells you to daven. If He tells you to daven in your living room, davening in a secret minyan is no better than shchutei chutz.2. Hardship inflicted by the Ribono shel Olam is the necessary antecedent for a geula that would not and could not have come if not for that painful experience.1. I came across an interesting Medrash, in Tehillim 4on passuk 5.

The point of the Medrash, and the relevance is self evident, is that tefilla is like a mikva. A mikva does not come to you; you have to go to the mikvah. So, too, you have to daven in Shul with a minyan. But what if you can not go to shul?Then daven in your house.But what if you can not daven in your house in a normal manner?Then daven in bed.Your optimal place of tefilla depends on the circumstances: if you can, you must daven in shul. If you can not, then your makom tefilla is your house.It seems to me that if the mikva is in your living room, and you go and daven with a minyan, then you're not in the mikva at all. The Ribono shel Olam decides where the mikva is, not you. And if you daven in a way that increases the danger to your own or your community's health, then you are at best an idiot, at worst an עובד עבודה זרה, and in either case, the Rambam would say אסור לרחם עליו. And Moshe Rabbeinu said, אכן נודע הדבר.Reb Moshe used to say over the Gemara in Sanhedrin 99b

In what manner have the Sages benefited us with all their Torah study? Never have they permitted a raven nor have they prohibited a dove for us.

רש"י

לא שרו לן עורבא - לא אמרו לנו שום חידוש שלא מצינו בתורה

The question is, we understand the Apikorus wants to be free from the restrictions the Torah places on us - "Why did Chazal never permit eating other birds, like the raven?" But why would he complain that Chazal never prohibited eating the dove?The answer is that the Apikorus is motivated by the desire to break the Torah, to break the mesorah. He doesn't really care that raven is treif, he doesn't care that dove is kosher. What bothers him is listening to the instruction of the Torah and of Chazal. Anything that breaks that power makes him happy, even if it means there are greater issurim. As long as he is not meshubad to the Torah, he is happy.So too, people who insist on davening with a minyan under the circumstances are channeling the House of Binyamin the Doctor. If the mesora, if the leaders of Klal Yisrael, say that we may not daven with a minyan, then "I insist on davening with a minyan."

2. The Yerushalmi Taanis 2 9. The Mishna says that there are special nuschaos for Shmoneh Esrei on a tainis declared because of drought. The seventh bracha mentions Dovid and Shlomo, and, according to Sumchos, ends with the words ברוך משפיל רמים, Blessed he who lowers down the haughty. The Yerushalmi asks, we know that there was a complaint against Shlomo for expressing pride in building the Mikdash when he said בנה בניתי בית זבול לך. But where do we find Dovid acting high? The Yerushalmi answers that this was shown by his counting Klal Yisrael, על ידי שביקש לעמוד על מניינן של ישראל. Then the Yerushalmi brings a memra from Rav Avahu.

Pshat in the Yerushalmi is that Dovid HaMelech realized that Hashem's response to his tefillos did not just remove the tzaar. The yeshua that he experienced yielded a benefit that he could not have possibly have attained if he had not suffered through the anguish. (This is reminiscent of the Beis HaLevi in אז ישיר.)This is how the Netziv explains it in his Imrei Shefer in the Hagadah, on מן המצר.

Some people make the mistake of learning the Yerushalmi like the Medrash in Tehillim, that simply means that Dovid experienced pain several times and Hashem saved him from that emotional suffering. This is just a mistake. The Yerushalmi and the Medrash are completely different.

Mishna:One who reads the Megilla out of order does not fulfil his obligation....Gemara:(An interpolation from the Talmud Bavli: In the case of Krias Shema, we know the source for the requirement to read it in order, and that is the words) V'hayu, which we understand to mean "exactly as written in the Torah."The rule of our Mishna, stated regarding Megilla, applies as well to Hallel and Krias Shema.(Returning to Yerushalmi:)In the case of Megilla, because it states Kiksavam, meaning "as written."What is the source for requiring Hallel to be read in order?Because it says "From place to sun rises to where it sets, God's name is praised." This implies that order is essential, to begin from the beginning and proceed to the end.Another proof: Because the concepts expressed in the Hallel are written chronologically:B'tzeis refers to the redemption from Egypt.Lo Lanu speaks of our time in the current exile.Ahavti speaks of the time after Mashiach comes.Isru Chag is the days of Gog u'Magog.Eili Attah is the ultimate and final goal of the future.

With this Yerushalmi, we understand why Hallel is split at the seder, with the first half before the meal and the second half after.The first half sings of the redemption from Egypt, and then prayerfully speaks of our condition as free men who await the return of the Shechina and all of Klal Yisrael to the land, and asks Hashem's protection during our exile. After we finish "Pesach, Matza, and Maror," the Hallel after the meal deals with the future God promised us, and although the wait seems endless, we sing about the wonders and joy that we will all experience when God fulfils His promise.See also Bavli Pesachim 118 on the same topic.

And since there is the great hallel, which contains the special praise of “Who gives food to all flesh” (Psalms 136:25), as explained above, what is the reason that one also recites thishallel of Psalms 113–118, the section recited on every joyous occasion? The Gemara answers: The reason is because the regular hallelcontains these five matters: The remembrance of the exodus from Egypt, the splitting of the Red Sea, the giving of the Torah, the resurrection of the dead, and the pangs of the Messiah. Since it mentions these key concepts, this hallel is also considered important.
The Gemara elaborates: The exodus from Egypt, as it is written: “When Israel came forth out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language” (Psalms 114:1). And the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is written: “The sea saw it and fled; the Jordan turned backward” (Psalms 114:3). The giving of the Torah, as it is written: “The mountains skipped like rams” (Psalms 114:4), which is similar to the description of the giving of the Torah found elsewhere in the books of the Prophets. The resurrection of the dead, as it is written: “I will walk before the Lord in the lands of the living” (Psalms 116:9), which follows the verse: “For you have delivered my soul from death.” After mentioning death, the psalm describes the resurrection in the lands of the living.The pangs of the Messiah, as it is written: “Not to us, God, not to us, but to Your name give glory” (Psalms 115:1). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse “Not to us, God, not to us” and the entire psalm, including the verse “Why should the nations say, where now is their God?” (Psalms 115:2), is referring to the era of the enslavement of the kingdoms and the redemption of the Jewish people from their dominion. Some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse “Not to us, God, not to us” is referring to the war of Gog and Magog, the catastrophes and wars that will befall the Jewish people in the end of days from which they will be delivered.

Both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi say that only the first two chapters of Hallel are Hallel Mitzrayim. All the rest of Hallel speaks of the present and the future. The division of the two sections is exactly in keeping with the order of the Seder, beginning with the celebration of Yetzias Mitzrayim, and ending with our faith in Hashem's presence during Galus and His ultimate return of the Shechina to Eretz Yisrael with Biyas Mashiach. The second section can certainly be recited after Chatzos.

This year, at our lonely sedarim, as we celebrate the Geulas Mitzrayim, let us hopefully and confidently and joyously sing of the Geula Ha'asida.

How to use this Website

Divrei Torah with a personal style and perspective; it may be negiyus but we enjoy them. Also, there is the occasionalexcellent insight.

These Divrei Torah are collaborative and iterative. Thanks to erudite and opinionated readers, posts almost never make it to the end of the week unchanged. If it doesn't make sense in the beginning of the week, check back later.

Some of these posts might require an investment of time and thought. While others are just divertissements and trifles, if you find nothing worthwhile here you're probably not paying enough attention. *** The writer of these posts is neither emotionally needy nor a narcissist; he writes for the pleasure of dialogue, for the benefit of intelligent criticism (which is incorporated into the evolving post), and so that readers might enjoy a novel Dvar Torah, *** The yeshivishe jargon may put some people off. This writer doesn't understand Pound or Derrida, and he is not expecting them to accommodate him. *** A long time ago, the author received Semicha from Rav Rudderman (1977) and Reb Moshe (1985). Those yellowing documents are insufficient to establish the validity of his current opinions in halacha or hashkafa. Reliance on his opinions can only be the product of credulity or indifference. *** For the opinion of a great poseik I recommend Harav Mordechai Eisenberg, head of Kollel Hora'ah of America, at https://www.kollelhoraah.com/. *** This writer can be contacted at eliezere at aol.